also @Miniman: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46201/… << I was reading SevenSidedDie's question and wondering -- why can't you embed a three-dimensional holy symbol into one's shield?
@Shalvenay I'm well known to use the approach, and when people see the colouring pencils out on the table, they know its time for them to draw their new characters :)
It just seems to me odd that a holy symbol could be emblazoned on a shield or inlaid into a shield, yet not inlaid/embedded through the shield in a way that it'd be possible to have a nub on the backside that you can simply have between two fingers when you hold the shield normally
that way, you hold the holy symbol and the shield at the same time ;)
Very roughly speaking, it's the same reason most editions of D&D don't support called shots or have HP loss reduce ability before you hit 0: the system is a set of abstractions and at some point you have to say "Yes, logically that would be realistic. But we've gotta draw the line somewhere and this is the place it's drawn here."
And letting people reason or argue their way into features that bypass abstractions everyone else follows, or gain features for free that everyone else has to pay for, is unlikely to make the group happy.
It's a fundamental concept: by choosing a system the group has agreed to work within it. An individual trying to persuade people that the system should be ignored needs to recognise that he's challenging the context everyone's agreed on.
The group may agree that the context should be changed, and that's great!
But if the individual is presenting it as fait accompli that a system challenge is the normal way to go about things, there may be a disconnect in the social contract.
It's kinda like arguing that a Jack of Diamonds beats a Jack of Spades because the JD has a sword and the JS has a baton--when everybody else was playing poker.
"But it's realistic and reasonable!" isn't a sufficient justification, because it's changing the level of abstraction everyone had agreed upon.
@BESW This conflicts with how groups generally choose D&D though.
"Let's play an RPG! That means D&D, and the latest one that has the features we enjoy. Oh, wait, this feature is dumb. Let's ignore that. Wait, so is this other one. What's this bit even mean? Okay, new house rule."
@doppelgreener See below: "there may be a disconnect in the social contract" applies quite often to groups which choose D&D for reasons of ubiquity or tradition.
One of our recently-active members describes being a member of a community of gamers which pick up the book, and then proceed to house rule everything.
This individual appeared to regard going by the book as an impediment, and openly remarked that playing that way was toxic to the hobby.
@doppelgreener If they all agree not to work within it, that's an agreement to work in a houseruled system. There is concord and mutual understanding about the rule system.
If some of them think house ruling is the way to go and some don't, then there's a disconnect.
"Pick a system" rarely means exactly "pick a published system."
@doppelgreener -- I have the problem that I will challenge any abstractions given to me as long as I can get something useful out of challenging that abstraction
in a system like FATE -- challenging the abstractions isn't needed because they sit atop what's actually going on, instead of underneath it -- AIUI, in FATE -- you develop the story normally, only invoking FATE's abstractions when you need to
@BESW -- agreed -- D&D for instance has had a long history of optional rules
@Shalvenay If you're talking about things like your recent suggestion of killing an ooze with salt, that's not a solution which fits the text of the rules. That's a solution that ignores the rules completely.
because I don't like players who approach the rules as an obstacle to get around/find gaps in/subvert. It probably comes from the fact that I largely run Savage Worlds only, and I've got used to the way it provides a framework for adjudicating almost any situations you can think whilst still remaining within the bounds of the basic rules and mechanics
@Shalvenay No, it's not a solution the rules allow for. It's a solution the 'rules' of real life allow for, which you want to use in a system with entirely different rules.
Unless you can point me to the rule where it says "Oozes are instantly killed by salt inside them."
Killing an Ooze with Salt? There is nothing that states that an ooze is made up of water which would be absorbed by the salt, or any chemical substance that reacts with salt at all.
@Shalvenay Also, turns out condescendingly ignoring the point I'm making in favour of proclaiming my ignorance with regards to chemistry doesn't make me agree with you.
@Dorian -- the original solution was using a spell to convert the chloride already existing inside the ooze (name me a living thing that isn't replete with the stuff) into hypochlorite, which then proceeds to do as hypochlorite does and oxidize the ooze from the inside out
@doppelgreener I'm interested by your use of the product-identification tag on that question. I'd never thought of a character class as a product before
While it's a nice and creative idea, were I the GMing that situation I would make you make an appropriate knowledge check (or several), and then I'd tell you that it's rather unlikely to work at all, but I wouldn't stop you from trying it.
Plus, it's a very unusual application of the spell as you said @Shalvenay, there's a good chance that your caster being inexperienced with such an application won't be able to make the required Spellcraft check to make it work in an unusual manner.
@Shalvenay No, it doesn't. You're still ignoring the rules completely in favour of real-world chemistry which you've arbitrarily decided still works within the system.
@Miniman Also, there's nothing saying his character doesn't know in character that salt dissolves slugs, and that slugs are comparable to oozes in their mind somehow.
If both salt and slugs exist in the world, it stands to reason that it would be relatively common knowledge for adults of any species.
And letting people reason or argue their way into features that bypass abstractions everyone else follows, or gain features for free that everyone else has to pay for, is unlikely to make the group happy.
@Dorian I think the line would be crossed if the player made the assumption that it should work. The reason I tend to dislike the kind of playstyle being advocated with that approach is that from experience it tends to lead to a lot of disagreements at the table
@Shalvenay That would be balanced, but it's still going outside the scope of the rules in order to create an effect that doesn't exist within the system.
If there's nothing in the rules saying it doesn't work, and there's nothing in the rules saying it does work, then it comes down to determining an effect, determining how skilled the character is in this particular application, determining whether they succeed in the attempt.
@Dorian If there's nothing in the rules saying it doesn't work, and there's nothing in the rules saying it does work, then it's outside the scope of the rules.
@Miniman -- I'm glad you established that you aren't saying "no this isn't allowed" just "this is outside RAW" btw -- that was my main point of confusion